[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r14098 - in trunk: . subversion/libsvn_client subversion/tests/clients/cmdline

From: John Szakmeister <john_at_szakmeister.net>
Date: 2005-05-05 23:57:50 CEST

kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> writes:
>>I guess it depends on your point of view. In this case, if I document
>>that you can only send it svn_opt_revision_base/committed/working and you
>>send it something else, then you violated the API. In that case, I feel
>>assert() is okay (in much the same way that we verify that input buffers
>>and paths aren't NULL). This function leaves the job of input validation
>>to the next level up. *shrug* I don't care all that much, I'm just
>>trying to understand why a runtime error is better than assert() in this
>>case. :-)
> Ah. I see what you're saying. Here are my thoughts.
> First, an error is much easier to understand.
> Second, we can force every caller to validate the revision, or it can
> just pass the revision along and count on this function to error if
> appropriate. Result: avoidance of duplicated code.
> That's why I would prefer an error.

Makes sense. I hope to get to resolving all of the remaining issues
over the weekend.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 5 23:58:39 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.